Open Letter: Dancers Respond to Rosie Kay’s Article in the Times

We, as cast members of Rosie Kay Dance Company’s Romeo + Juliet write this letter as an open response to Rosie Kay’s article in The Times and Third Sector.

Rosie went public in revealing details of the grievances we had raised during her company’s grievance procedure. These procedures are intended to give protections in the workplace and allow issues to be resolved.

Rosie could have responded to the company’s behaviour towards her without involving us publicly.

By involving us, Rosie has ‘outed us’, jeopardising our safety.

For Rosie to refer to us as “troubled” and “inexperienced”, is diminishing and demeaning.

We had respected Rosie’s privacy in not making our complaints public. We followed Rosie’s company’s internal, grievance process. These grievances included the following statements she made during a work social:

• “Identifying as non-binary is a cop out”
• “Can you just confirm that you have a penis, and you have a vagina? Your mothers know that you’re a boy or a girl because they gave birth to you and saw you had a penis or a vagina”
• “Transwomen are a danger to actual women in toilets and only want access to female toilets to commit sexual assault”
• “Allowing trans people to take hormone blockers is creating eunuchs”
• “There is no such thing as non-binary, you are one or the other and if you believe that you are non-binary then you are insane”

These statements and question were specifically directed at two trans non-binary dancers, who had identified themselves as such in answer to a pre-start questionnaire issued by Rosie’s Company.

It was Rosie who had raised the topic of gender that night, which began by her expressing her difficulty in using the correct pronouns of two of the dancers. It was her company that had asked us how we identify at the start of our contract.

We did not instigate or ask for a debate surrounding gender, nor did we consent to having our gender identities disputed while at this work social event arranged by her, our ‘boss’.

Despite not wanting to be questioned in this way, we respected Rosie’s right to hold the belief that biological sex is immutable.

Following the incident, while apologising, Rosie said she could not recall parts of the night, stating she ‘blacked out’.

If this was true, we wonder at the detail Rosie now seems to be able to recall from that evening.

After approximately 6 weeks had past, Rosie sent us a written apology. In this apology, she wrote that her behaviour was not what we were entitled to expect.

Rosie said while it was never her intention, she saw that she had profoundly upset us.

We received this at the end of the informal grievance stage, we assumed because she felt it was right for her to apologise.

That she accepted she had been wrong was appreciated, but several of us felt that her apology was inadequate as it was a copy and paste apology. Everyone received the same apology irrespective of what had been personally addressed to them. We asked to continue to the first formal stage of the grievance procedure. We kept this discourse confidential.

Attached to this letter are corrections to the inaccurate statements made by Rosie in The Times and Third Sector. These are shared to set the record straight.

We feel there is still discrimination in arts spaces, and that includes towards those of the trans experience, which includes non-binary people. We want balance and accountability.

We respect Rosie’s right to hold the belief that biological sex is immutable, and we never questioned her rights.

However, no one, no matter how big their platform, has the right to create a hostile work environment. She abused her power as our boss. Furthermore, she is now using her power as someone that has a louder voice than we can hope for.

This whole incident highlights a number of key issues with our arts sector. Firstly, Arts Council England are unaware of how their NPO’s (National Portfolio Organisations) are treating other artists. Secondly, that artistic, liberal spaces are still not safe and inclusive for all. Lastly, that freelance artists have little to no protection whilst under a contract or in a creative process. There is an enormous amount of pressure put on artists to be resilient in order to make up for the fragility of the sector. That resilience and emotional and physical investment is far too often abused and taken for granted.

‘Youth’ is referred to five times in Rosie’s article. We do not see the relevance of this, except to diminish us.

We have already heard of others writing about their experience of working for Rosie.

Hopefully, if anyone has experienced any abuse of power by Rosie they will come forward and share their stories.

Ayesha Fazal, Deepraj Singh, Harry Ondrak-Wright, Iona McGuire, Mayowa Ogunnaike, and Patrick Ross Webster.

Corrections to Statements Made by Rosie Kay and The Times

Inaccurate Statement 1: ‘Rosie was forced out of the company for her belief that biological sex is immutable.’

Corrected Statement: Rosie resigned from the company while her company’s grievance process was taking place. It was ongoing, was not a disciplinary process and no conclusion has been reached.

Inaccurate Statement 2: ‘Argument at a party she held at her home’

Corrected Statement: An ‘argument’ mischaracterises what happened. Rosie, our ‘boss’, forced a conversation on the topic of gender identity and sex at a work social she had arranged, where she also raised the question of casting for a new production.

Inaccurate Statement 3: ‘Everyone got “lairy and loud”’

Corrected Statement: Only one person got lairy and loud, and that was Rosie. Everyone else present at the party was calm. Rosie later admitted to members of the cast that she ‘blacked out’ — she claimed to not remember what had happened.

Inaccurate Statement 4: ‘auditioning a young cast, aged 22–27’

Corrected Statement: The cast are aged between 21–40, therefore it is factually incorrect to describe us as young people. Collectively we have over 25 years professional experience, and some of us have trained since childhood to hone our craft.

This language was specifically chosen by The Times to undermine us when we raised a valid concern about Rosie’s behaviour.

Inaccurate Statement 5: ‘no one hung out together. They were very disjointed’

Corrected Statement: The production was created under covid-19 restrictions, and the cast were instructed not to socialise with one another to ensure that the premiere of the production could go ahead.

Inaccurate Statement 6: ‘four months later, having only just seen allegations she totally denies’.

Corrected Statement: The allegations were made in the final week of August. Four months following this would take us to the end of December, therefore this statement is untrue.

Rosie was made aware of her behaviour within 2 days after she ‘blacked out’. She knew she was in the wrong because she gave a verbal apology that day (30th August 2021).

The board informed Rosie Kay of an informal grievance process in September 2021.

We were informed on the 8th October 2021 that the board had conducted a meeting with Rosie to discuss the grievances made.

Rosie then gave us a written apology the same day (8th October 2021).

Inaccurate Statement 6: ‘Kay asked them to define non-binary’

Corrected Statement: Rosie repeatedly singled-out two cast members who had defined as non-binary to define the term.

This repeated questioning was aggressive to those two cast members.

Inaccurate Statement 7: ‘Several male dancers shouted she was a bigot and a terf’

Corrected Statement: No cast member used these terms. The individuals that Rosie accuses of this were trying to reason with her; they were asking Rosie to understand the view that gender is a construct, and that dysphoria can be painful for trans people to experience.

Inaccurate Statement 8: ‘At the coffee break, she says the non-binary dancer who was cast in the female part complained that in doing this, Kay had misgendered them.’

Corrected Statement: This is factually incorrect. It was the non-binary dancer cast in the male role — not the female role — that expressed their discomfort with being misgendered during the ballet class.

Inaccurate Statement 9: ‘Kay’s use of the words “penis” and “vagina” amounted to sexual harassment’

Corrected Statement: Rosie interrogated two non-binary cast members about their Genitalia, pressuring them to confirm ‘what they had’. It was aggressive, objectifying and offensive.

Inaccurate Statement 10: ‘During one warm-up session, she asked the male dancers to perform “boy jumps” and the females to do “girl jumps”, referring to specific ballet steps.’

Corrected Statement: During company class, Rosie taught a sequence of ballet jumps. She did not use the phrases “boy jumps” and “girls jumps” while teaching the sequence. All the dancers learned the same steps.

Rosie asked the dancers to perform the sequence in two groups. We split into two groups each consisting of performers of different genders. Rosie went on to describe the first group as the boys and the second as the girls. This was one example of misgendering that took place.

Inaccurate Statement 11: ‘“Cowards” on the board’

Corrected Statement: The board have followed her company’s grievance procedure which has yet to be concluded.

Grievance procedures are there to give protections in a workplace and allow issues to be resolved.

This is not cowardice, it is implementing company policy and ensuring that individuals are accountable for their behaviour. It is standard practice across employers in the UK.

We’ve not been told of any disciplinary procedure even starting.

We don’t know anything about other disputes between Rosie and her trustees or why she lost access to the company’s bank account etc.

But that is nothing to do with us and what she did to us that night, for which she had acknowledged she was in the wrong.

Inaccurate Statement 12: ‘Thankfully, her canny father ensured that she retains all intellectual property rights. So the Rosie Kay Dance Company is left a shell.’

Corrected Statement: As co-choreographers of this production (a term used by Rosie), we also have intellectual property rights regarding the production of Romeo and Juliet (as per our Credit and Royalty Agreement).

It’s depressing that the contribution of dancers co-creating is once again ignored.